The child who is loved by his parents as he/she wants/needs to be vs. the child who is never loved as he/she is needs to be. What’s the diff?

One level of me wants to say “nothing, since both children (if fully able to know their hearts desire) will still feel a lack and be in need of feeling unconditional love from God.  But I won’t accept that any parent can thereby not show unconditional love to any child and get away with it (excuse: go to God to get that). That’s outsourcing love.

Instead, the child who knows what unconditional love is is better prepared to recognize it and give it. More “fluent” in love. Thereby, a child’s value of love is both equated and inverse to a parent’s dispensation of it to them. Equated: understands it in proportion to it being given. Inverse: In desperate need of it depending on how much it has been given. Since another finite person can never fill the infinite need in the soul, the need is always and forever there.

As I was finishing up uni & going crazy over my unknown future, a ‘dorm-dad’ told me that psychology & personal development & “all the studies say” I won’t know who I am or what I’m doing until almost 30 years of age. So instead of being fearful about it, I was recommended to take it easy, do what sounds worthwhile and see where I land. It sounds a bit haphazard, but honestly: it worked!

Or perhaps I’m seeing this backwards: maybe own brains will “settle down” no matter what we give it, the difference being the one who has invested in himself (travelling internationally, going to grad school, living in multiple cities & building extensive social networks: read: ’seen a lot of different options on how to do life’) such a person will have a wider, more flexible base on which to settle than the one who stays put in one town, one church, one set of friends, watching TV & bar-hopping, never grad schooling.

And while pop-wisdom says youth just need to “get it out of their system” (all this traveling, idealism & ‘rebellion’) that’s only true if you don’t become addicted (or otherwise maladjusted to life). It’s not about “getting it out” so much as “taking it in.” All these experiences I’ve had in & after uni give me the options I need to decide upon who I am and how I’d like to live my life.

And after traveling for a month solid, I’ve come to find out: I don’t think I can handle it anymore! I used to LOVE going-going-going! Flying here, there & in between (heck, this was just a few months ago!!) But after taking 2 days to recover, travel keeps me from myself. And I like myself, and want to be me! I love playing guitar, being productive, having a clean house (which roomies don’t keep up when I’m not there!!). I like my life where it is now, and I don’t wanna have to leave it all the time.

Now, this doesn’t change that I could live out my routine in nearly any city, so I’m still flex, not tied down to any location, so much as my standard and schedule & values acted out wherever I am.

Communicating this to my friends in my old city caused me confusion. I had not yet made any final judgments on my new life, until they asked. “Oh, I guess I like it.. yeah, love it? Sure, that works too..” And I started telling people that I really do like it down here. Then I came back, and looked around at my house & friends.. “I love this?” Yes, I do– I love the good of it, but there’s the bad & messy, and I’m ok with that part too, even if that part is forgotten while away.

So I’m an old man now because I’ve found my life I like, found those element which I NEED to have in it, and I’ve got to protect ‘em & keep ‘em in. This is the OTHER kind of ’settling’– not a lowering of expectations or dreams, but having found the realistic elements in the dreams, and making those actualized. And actualized enough to feel alive.

And for the curious, what caused this blog? Playing “Say it to me now” (opening song of Once) on guitar, and sounding good at it!!  (Am I going to have to start taking my guitar with me everywhere?)

Modernist Christian:

“Do this because it’s ‘the right way’ (as outlined in the Bible)”

PoMo Christian:

Listen, that thing you do- is it really getting you anywhere? I mean,  I know you’re always blaming it on ___, but doesn’t your heart ache for something more?

Let’s be clear: PoMo is about more than simple relativism. It’s deeply tied to subjectivity, and subjectivity isn’t bad. It’s only bad when it’s absolute. And so is absolute objectivity of humanity. This is life people, not a prison camp. There is such a thing as grace that allows for crazy statements like “Don’t be too religious“* and “Go in peace” to a whore.

To one who’s violently embedded, it’s tough to tell one on the other side the other’s right. Again, humility saves the day:
“Love and logic keep us clear”

Yes, Miracle Drug is an amazing song. Still.

* Amazing that we have an entire book in the Bible devoted to the concept of ‘enjoyment’(whether it’s possible) & never once references ‘prayer’!

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction. I loved it, at least all but the ending. I kind of wanted him to face death knowingly. I didn’t really like the cheese-ball ending, and I thought Emma Thompson was beyond amazing in her role. A crime she was only nominated.

I’ve been struggling to make sense of a few things lately. And you see that’s my problem. I always demand I make sense of things. *I* must know. And since I know and others seem to not, this is a problem. But I’ve been haunted all my life by one thing: all my thoughts have been thought before. All my genius ideas for technology & web applications: done by Google. All my observations about human psychology & sociology: 50 years late. It’s all be done before.

And that’s not all. Like I recently posted– people are people. They really don’t want to change. Me telling them, reconstructing, informing doesn’t do much. I’d love to believe people want to change, but I can’t make that fit. If someone does change or even want to, I’m thrilled, but I’m turning more cautious about believing it.

I see around me people’s lives crashing. And like I said.. I can analyze their psychology & conditions and plot the path, define their needs, only to see them not get it. I could call it failure to communicate on my part– believe me, I know I’m enigmatic.

I’d like to always run from being a child of my sitz en leben, I’d much rather rise above it knowingly; but I’m human. I’m embedded here. I see the stories unfolding around me and in me and it’s so rough-and-tumble. Why are we so stubborn? So mean? So blind? Love is great, and necessary, but simple humility comes back around as underlying it all. Self-determination is slowly crumbling- mostly at the four paws of the dog which trotted along in front of me this morning. I’m not going anywhere, and I think that if I were born 70 years prior, I’d be unable to be. I was born into this time not only for the good of this time, but for my own good.

I’d like to think I know the sources of x, y & not z’s societal status at present, but I’m wondering if they’ve been going on all along & I just missed it, or was just withheld from knowing it sooner. And there are people which take in stride as obvious what I stand in awe over. Doesn’t mean I understand it more, just that it’s novel to me. And I’m lucky enough to have people around me who like watching me smile over it, and break me down with their laughter when I rage over it all.

As hard as I try to avoid it, I’m coming to admit I don’t understand people. We’re such a… half-woven, tattered, patched together cloth that’s been on spin-cycle for waaaaaay too long. And as far as I can tell, it’s all related to our loves. Just what we fall for, what we protect (so violently!!) what we choose over another. I used to think it was more about what forces acted upon us, or within us.. and those ARE important when we’re so unsure of ourselves. Then there’s all the yuppies.. over-confident.. sickeningly so that they can’t hold themselves down long enough to DO anything. Or all the protectionists.. too afraid to admit to anything else, or to go and do anything else.

Seriously. I could diagnose half the world and tell ‘em what to do/change or what they needed. If knowledge is what they lacked, we’d be done a long time ago. Knowledge is what is lacking often, but you can’t give people knowledge (wisdom). They have to want it. And you can’t make ‘em drink. Salt-lick marketing anyone?

Seriously? I think what life ends up being is you happening to find some people who you’d like to have hope in/for & push ‘em when ya can & keep up with ‘em until then. Or meet new people that show you how you suck– in a healthy way, exposing unadmitted/forgotten weaknesses, etc.

Life is so very loose-knit.. it’s really amazing anything happens.

Just cuz __x__ is used as ammo against ___A___ does not mean __x__ is necessarily against ___A___.

This is what all “radicalists” do not understand, and what (good) PoMo’s do understand.

How this is true:

1. Pure logic. Use a Venn diagram if you need.
2. Subversion/Re-framing:
   1. Addition: throwing in more ‘variables’ (statements) that undermine
   2. Subtraction: removing illegit variables (statements)

What happens when this isn’t understood? Fear-mongering and a smaller, protectionist world.

Kevin Kelly proves how amazing he is today. The internet has opened doors wide open, and our economy is now dependent on it, but the transition isn’t over yet. (Obama’s running, but not in office yet either!)

These eight qualities require a new skill set. Success in the free-copy world is not derived from the skills of distribution since the Great Copy Machine in the Sky takes care of that. Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore. Nor are the skills of hoarding and scarcity. Rather, these new eight generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset, how generosity is a business model, how vital it has become to cultivate and nurture qualities that can’t be replicated with a click of the mouse.

So, here’s my commentary on some of ‘the 8′:

Authenticity: it amazes me that the recording industry is being beyond paranoid about this. Kevin makes the wonderful point that visual artists have had to deal with fakes for HOW many years? Take a clue instead of suing everyone and holding on to a fading world. Change or die. (Or use the courts?)

Accessability: requires open standards and free software behind it! I want my media on all my devices, but often the device manufacturer didn’t intend/supply the ability to access all i want (all the device can!) The Nokia n800 is a great example. This thing can be your calendar, ssh client, webserver. It’s a portable web-dev environment. Did they indend it to be such? Nope. Can it? Yup. So for listening to music on my phone, until the speed gets up on the networks, and software is written to access it, I’m gonna fill my microSD card. But that’s all pragmatics anyways.

Embodiment: Experience. More on that later.

Patronage: dependent on cultural sense of value of ART/$. If the dollar is worth less, they’ll get more. If worth more, they’ll get less,

Findability: I get scared this means “more annoying advertisements”! It just may.

He continues with how being found is near impossible for “the little man.” Hmm.. didn’t I mention this a few days ago about “the little man” taking on these overgrown concierge-systems? Great ideas aren’t great until they’re known. Then comes the question, “How do I get known?” (1) Pay (2) Hard work (3) Always requires time for that ‘long tail’ to be connected. I saw a model of how this works as a kid in the back seat watching rain on the window. When I saw that not all of the water was falling, but some small drops were sticking, I wondered when they stopped sticking in place and started running down the window. Turns out it’s surface tension.. aka “The Cheerio Effect.” Only when more water was applied (through random rain or as it touched another drop) did gravity overcome and pull the larger drop down. But in the process, the drop “wanted” to touch other drops more than it “wanted” to go unimpeded down the water-free glass. As I’ve anthropomophised this example, so it is with people. Given the option, we’ll generally go talk with people we know about something we enjoy over sitting in a room alone and enjoying it.

And oddly enough, ‘trust’ is what makes Google more popular than the near defunct dozens of other search engines (who uses lycos, dogpile, altavista anymore anyways?? But I remember when each was considered “the best”).

He closes with Advertising, something I was fearful to consider as well: Google has become the greatest traffic-cop/concierge. “Find it on Google” doesn’t mean google owns it. Just that Google knows where it is. Google doesn’t advertise itself. It advertises those who have it.
But advertising is a function of “Person who owns ad-able space” & “Owner’s interest in open space vs. $”. I’d like to rewrite that last one as “Interest in ART vs. $.” Aesthetics is the newest highest virtue. We’ve been sliding that way for the past century or two, but What troubles me is, “What’s next?” I don’t ask that question blindly like most.. Aesthetics came to us as being the last in a line of Metaphysics (who could doubt reality?), Epistemology (Who can doubt knowledge?) & now Aesthetics (who can doubt what is beautiful?). Aesthetics isn’t empirical. It isn’t rational. It’s subjective experience. Who can doubt that? Sure you can, but I can’t. (Yeah, it’s obnoxious seeing all these kids in the corner pouting, “My way!”)

There’s only so many Ethical virtues. When virtue became a virtue, it no longer meant anything. “Box means box” is no more clarifying than “HGu” is “HGu.” Virtue was a hold-over from pre-modernism, and Modernity replaced it with pragmatism. Pragmatism values $ over art/open space (Need we one MORE rendition of Joni Mitchell, thank you Counting Crows, Lillith Fair, etc!) and the artists scream back. But even the height of hippie-dom my generation pushes against. “free, open, whatever man” doesn’t work. We know this, instead we use knowledge that modernism has created an apply it in our own ways.

Previously, knowledge had a capital K. It only added up ONE way (Who knew the evangelicals ended up embracing modernism after all!) And in a semi-uninformed society, trust of authority is essential. But if we all know how the government/MS Windows/life works (and fails) we can make a new one. And that’s what my generation is doing: “playing with the pieces” as my philosophy prof said. But when he said it, it sounded dull and dreary. Turns out, it’s ‘exciting’ until it fails. But so is ANY human project.

Think of it, Modernism was exciting when it came out too. Think of all the Modern Dreams- the Jetsons or even Bruce Wayne’s father’s world. His father had a Modern dream if there ever was one. Bruce now lives in the bitterness of it being broken, while trying to restore order. He may be dreaming like his father, but the setting doesn’t portray him as nearly as successful. Why? Any coder will tell you: debugging the system takes at least 3times longer than building it! But it’s exciting when it starts. So is the initiation of child-birth. Child-rearing isn’t nearly as fun and care-free.

One-off heroism and the idealism of dreams vs. ‘reality’ of cleaning up, fixing up, confession of wrongs, persistence, patience. Modernism tried to do away with the latter. But like Terminator & The Matrix, people are the problem to that. People screw up. You can’t remove confession of wrongs and still hope for true life. Modernism took violence against reality. PostModernism is somewhere between using the natural-flowing stream: let it run free, but use it too. Augmented Reality. That’s what pharmaceutical co’s promote. That’s what technology is dabbling with (don’t ride the train with all the scary people, drive your OWN car instead! And if you DO ride the train, be sure to insulate yourself with your iPod).

Ok. I’m spent. I’m sure there’s more to write on this, like how social justice/activism is or isn’t involved,  whether putting a bumper sticker is doing anything, and the hippie ‘one world’ dream. Such a socio-economic transition. Let’s just hope the geeks take over congress

I think I’ve misunderstood child-rearing a tad, at least on the topic of social growth. The argument in my head usually runs, “I never had ____ newest video games, so I couldn’t ever talk, trade, socialize over them.” The obvious conclusion is that a good parent will (even must for their child’s development) buy, buy, buy. Not so much that the parents keep up with the Jones’ as much as their children must.

But I never liked that conclusion. And perhaps it’s because I’d be leaving socialization in the hands of my kids’ mean, bratty peers. Not just socialization, but their self-worth. Bingo. That’s what’s going on here.

Self-worth : good social skills :: chicken : the egg.

That is to say, which comes first? A child’s self-worth is built in his own terms (concrete thinking). I’ve mentioned this before on other terms: a child will most likely hold to his parents value system so long as he sees the worth in that system through providing for his basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, enjoyment of life generically.

So it seems that any child will seek out/need approval from peers when he hasn’t got it from others. This is a statement I’ve heard a million times.. applied to those who “act out” in classrooms. But what about the kid like me who just sat quiet because he had a sense of authority? He still needs validation, and a 1/30 ratio isn’t enough from the teacher, and without ‘tools’ to socialize over, he isn’t getting it from the last-resort: peers.

I suppose I’m suggesting a priority of how a child builds self-confidence. Probably somewhere in line between Maslow and Bronfenbrenner. Families with more kids have more brothers and sisters to socialize around. When someone wants to play a game, there’s a higher chance that he’ll have another to play with than with a child who has a younger sister only. And in that asking “hey, ya wanna play ____?” self confidence is built. “Another thinks I have a good idea!”

Parents, being in your microsystem, have a lot of influence, but they often cannot give enough, lest their child become authoritarian-addicted. A child with a multiplicity of relational types will have a bettr foundation than a self-confidence built solely around older authorities. (Fact of life: not everyone around you is your authority! Whoa!) Hence my analogy with “Fathers, Brothers, Sons.” All 3 are requisite, and not just in your mid-early 20’s when I realized it.

On the train today I considered (quite out of nowhere)  not just how people themselves are not static, but how they view themselves and their environment as such. This is a crazy (albeit half-warranted) idea/expectation. Certainly we can’t keep up with all that changes in and around us, but to allow for it seems wise. And it’s this allowing for change that I noticed even in myself that I will have to allow for my children to not experience (at, say age 15) the same things I experienced when I was 15. Of course there are built-in human developmental consistencies, but that’s what makes this interesting.. the mix of static and dynamic.

And instead of viewing people are “who they are” or even myself as “who I now am”, perhaps viewing us all in a more historical manner would improve perspective. To some degree I’ve heard this in christianity “live in light of eternity” etc, etc. But what I mean is to consider that I have had a set of experiences and I’ve handled them in various manners (reacted against, jumped on the bandwagon, questioned, denied). That is who I am. As well, there’s another set of cirumstances coming my way, and another set of circumstances I expect.

What this means is that though I grew up in evangelical christianity, I’m now reacting against it (to some mediate degree). If I continue in this pattern, then my children will not grow up in this same ideology as I have, and will not have the same reaction against it that I do. So at age 17, when I started to understand that “there’s more to Christianity than conservative evangelicalism”, my children may well have the opposite “oh, evangelicalism isn’t so bad.”

Or take it a step further: Modernism isn’t so bad.

Overall, I’ve had a sordid history with ‘reality’. I used to fuss over semantics with those who’d say, “why can’t we just ‘be real’ with each other?”

There’s a number of problems with this, especially socially: there’s a matter of honesty and boundaries which needs navigated correctly instead of polarized even more than it is. And my personal issue: “Being real” usually referred to expressing the pent-up sinful desires/anger/addictions within us. So “real” means “sinful.” And we’re christians, so why ought we be “real” then?

The matter truly at hand is ideological: will we agree to a singular position of conservation across multiple disciplines (economics, politics, education, ethics, entertainment) or a singular liberal position across those same disciplines. This sounds ridiculous when you take it in Lego terms: I have 10 pieces, 2 for each discipline, one representing liberality, one representing conservation. Now, you’re telling me that the 5 conservative pieces ONLY fit together and the 5 liberal peices ONLY fit together, and ne’er the twain shall meet?

Now, it’s one thing to say that “these 5 fit together, and the best in such and such a fashion, but there’s some issues to contend with. If you believe that, then:

1. shouldn’t it produce actual improvement?
2. shouldn’t it be rationally coherent and explainable as to why they ought fit together as such?

But instead when that position leads to triviality and no reasons are given, it inherently undermines itself.

I didn’t recognize half of this until after I took a Contemporary Philosophy class and read John Eldredge. These two presented me with alternative legitimate positions and issues to deal with.

Reality, as is desired and concerned with by most teenagers & college kids is the daily concerns and struggles and joys of others who have lived and do live differently. It’s not enough to hear 3rd-hand. Hand-me-down ethics and reasons don’t always cut it. but to befriend the heartache and joys of a homosexual is 90 times more effective at “learning life” than dismissing all aspects of their life as “wrong.”

This isn’t about just ethics. This applies to knowing if media (news, music, movies) are healthy and worthwhile. I’m reading a Reuter’s article today that says the Microsoft buyout offer to Yahoo is all about search. Then I read effectively an op-ed by an industry analyst, and all of a sudden it’s not about search anymore. Who will I trust?

So maybe it’s not about tech anymore. Maybe it’s about how to raise your kids. Do you trust the “industry insiders” of parenting? Who is that anyways? The bestseller? your mom? How to decide?

It’s tough for parents, wanting to be protective, and their teenage kids react against their position in polarized fashion. The parents react just the same “Ahh! My kid is talking about __liberal position__!!” Sure they are. Why? cuz it’s something. Something that you, as a parent never allowed on the map, and now they realize it’s on the map out there somewhere. Just because parents forget/ignore/deny that something it out there doesn’t mean that their child can/will.